The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1887-10-09
A Lcs.on in Political History.

| "A Lesson IN tOttGtCRi hibtorys
Eleven times since 1886 the Empire State
has furnished q candidate for the Presidency.
This list includes HANCOCK, who, though
credited TO Pennsylvania, was really New
Yorker, and the boiling candidates. OF
BIRNEy as an Abolitionist, VAN BUREN and
| FILLMORE as Free Soilers, and O'CoNoR as
regular Democrat In 1872
But Notwithstanding this large number OF
candidates, only two OF them have been In
augurated as President, VAN buren, ana
CLEVELAND, though two other New York
men not nominated for the Presidency have
held the office, FILLMORE and ARTHUR.
A peculiar fact is to be noticed with refer
ence to these New York aspirants. Not q
single one Of our candidates has ever been
ronominated except VAN BuREN. although
F11LMoRE was boiling candidate in 30. as
VAN buren, was In 4S. And when VAN
BuREN was deprived of the nomination in "A,
to which he was clearly entitled, and when
ARTHUR failed to receive the nomination In
's4, these failures were due principally to an
tagonisms created in New York.
If the experience Of national politics teach
ca anything it is that no New York man to
whom any fair number Of New York politi-
clans are either openly or quietly opposed.
can succeed in getting denomination for
the Presidency. The facts which prove this
are by no means without interest.
In 1910 there was no opposition worthy OF
the name to Mr.. VAN BuREN's denomination,
and he received it without any contest.
But his antagonist was not to be HENRY
CLAY, though CIAY's personal popularity
was as great with the Wings then as Mr..
BLAINE seems to be with the Republicans
to-day. CLAY was the choice OF an over
whelming majority Of the Wings of New
York, but he was secretly opposed by
few leading politicians Of that party In New
York. They set about to compass his
defeat. They conducted what was then
famous as the triangular correspondence,
which, while seeming to come from friends
of CLAY, really stabbed him with the most
subtle and delicate insinuations. By that
method and some others moro elaborate,
these opponents Of Mr.. CLAY secured the
election of delegates from New York to the
National Convention. who were either Be-
cretly opposed to him or could be controlled
to vote against him; and thus the New York
men beat CLAY In the Convention.
In 1874 there was among the New York
politicians little opposition to Mr.. CLAY,
and he was nominated by reclamation.
On the other hand, there had been
developed in New York some oppo-
sition to MARTIN VAN buren,. He was
beyond question the choice Of the Demo-
cratic party. That was made apparent by
the ease with which he secured ma
jority OF the delegates to the Convention.
| On fair vote he would have been nominated
by at least thirty majority. But there were
| New York politicians who were determined
| to beat him. DANIEL s. DICKINSON, as q
| leader among the Hunkers, as Mr.. VAN
BUREN's opponents were called determined
| that Mr. VAN buren, should not be renom-
mated, and by the adoption OF what Is now
known as the two-thirds rule, by which
| Democratic Conventions have since been
governed, Mr.. VAN buren, was defeated.
That was the work Of New York politicians,
successfully accomplished against man
who was believed to be the choice Of the
great majority Of his party.
It was New York politician who defeated
CLAY In the canvass that followed. He was
JAMES G. BIRNEY, and he was bitter per-
sonal enemy Of Mr.. CLAY. Those who were
most familiar with the under current Of poll
tics Of that day declared that BIRNEY ran for
the Presidency on the Abolition ticket simply
to defeat Mr.. CLAY. He did 1t. He polled
$1,000 votes, at least II, 900 of which came from
the Wings, and that loss gave POLK plu-
rality in New York not much larger than that
which Mr.. CLEVELAND obtained over BLAINE.
The tables turned In 1s4s. Smarting under
the injustice that they believed the Hunkers
OF New York had done VAN buren, In 1874,
the Barnburners, with some others, put him
in nomination In 1913 as the candidate OF the
Free Sellers. 1t was bolt from the regular
Democratic nomination Of Gen. CAss, and
1t was successful. It gave the State of
New York to Gen. TAYLOR and elected him.
Again few New York politicians had COM
passed the defeat they sought.
Though WILLIAM II. SEWARD would posi-
bly, have been defeated In his effort for the
Presidential nomination in 1850 had HoR-
ACE GREELEY supported him, yet there Is
little doubt that Mr.. GREELEY'S presence
at the Chicago Convention made his defeat
the easier to compass.
HoRATIo SEYMOUR and Mr.. TILDEN were
not candidates for denomination. though
there is no doubt that Mr.. TInDEN would have
been renominatedi in 1885, In spite Of his decli-
|
that 1t be done, while Gen. ARTHURs nomi-
nation could not have been prevented in 1884
had the New York State delegation given
him its united support.
Though Mr.. CLEVELAND was nominated
in 1884, in spite Of the pronounced hostility
of q considerable part Of the New York dele
cation, yet he narrowly escaped defeat In
that Convention. The members Of the
New York delegation who opposed Mr.
CLEvRLAND's nomination were bound hand
and foot by the unit rule, but the
moral effect Of their protestations and
their solemn appeals, both in public and pri-
vate, against the nomination Of man
whom they declared they opposed because
his defeat was certain, caused the CLEvE-
LAND forces, which were held only by dis
cipline and not by any personal attach
ment to him, to waver. The heart OF the
Convention was for HENDRICKS, and that
body might have been stampeded for him,